David wrote: >> Lastly, all those who believe the Bible consider the >> Indians of the Western Hemisphere to have migrated >> here from the Middle East after Noah's flood, so >> there must be more of a connection established to >> the imaginary Nephites than simply art depicting beards.
BLAINE: > Describing the connection I am making between art depicting > men with beards and aquiline features, and BoM Nephites, > Jaredites, and Mulekites as only "imaginary" is, I would say, > very cynical. Skeptical would be a more accurate word than cynical to describe my perspective. I do not consider the book of Mormon to be a historical book. I consider it a novel, an imaginery account that draws upon several sources. My word "imaginery" was not reflective of the connection you were making, but of the Nephites themselves. I hesitated to insert the word, but I wanted to communicate to you that the lack of a historical reality that exists in my mind concerning the Nephites. Blaine wrote: > You on the one hand accept the record of Jesus Christ in the > Bible as being true, yet on the other hand cannot even tell me > one actual proof that any written materials about Him, Bible > or otherwise, is anything but written myth. NO "proof" tells > me he ever even lived. Au contraire. The proof of the Bible is that we have historical men who have testified to what is recorded there. The Bible is filled with a genealogical basis going back to the very first man Adam. To argue that the Bible is myth would be to argue that the Jews of today do not exist. In the Jewish people, we find a culture and life as described in the writings of the Bible. This is not true for the book of Mormon. The people it speaks about are imaginary. It claims they once existed but then got wiped out. The Bible does not proceed by this method. The Bible speaks about its people in real terms and continues to give us promise concerning them. I can look all over the world, find Jews scattered just as the Bible says, also see them being called back to their land, just as the Bible says. I can read about the customs and rituals handed down to them in the Bible, and I can find these people still doing them. Even in Africa, there are tribes who continue such practices. Blaine wrote: > You can't even tell me what the man looked like. > Was he tall, did he have a beard, was he brown-eyed, > blue-eyed, fair-skinned, brown-skinned, or what? > All you have to go on is your "imagination." Yet > you accept him unquestioningly. I would not say that I accept him unquestioningly. I have a healthy skepticism toward what I read in the Bible too. As for his physical characteristics, I don't care much about that. I do care about the characteristics of his personality and person. Blaine wrote: > How are you different than myself, and millions of other Mormons, > who accept these bearded men evidences and assume they are > "proof" that Nephites of Hebrew origin lived in the area of > Meso-America? I am different because I consider all possible explanations, not just the ones that I hope to find. I approach the Bible this way too. Blaine wrote: > At least we know from BoM descriptions of them that they > were "fair," large of stature, intelligent, and had a language > that was unreadable except by inspired seers. > That is a lot, I would say. But the statutes you pointed us to showed a man of small stature with a beard. Doesn't that contradict the Book of Mormon? Blaine wrote: > Bible experts and archeologists have had two thousand years > to uncover the present wealth of knowledge largely substantiating > the Bible, yet you complain that in 200 years we have not acquired > a comparable wealth of exact information regarding these peoples. > I say this is just plain cynicism on your part. Most archaeologists do not go about trying to establish the Bible. Some have even attempted to criticize the Bible as myth based upon archaeology. The problem is that the Bible is so rooted in historical reality that such attempts, while gaining momentum at times in the short run, always fail in the long run. Your complaint about needing more time for the evidence to come to light is the same argument that evolutionists rely upon for their theories. One must also consider the possibility that no matter how much time one has, the evidence does not support the conclusion desired. This is not cynicism. This is healthy skepticism. Peace be with you. David Miller. ---------- "Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
